A potential government shutdown hurtling ever closer, the Democratic-led Senate is ready to approve legislation keeping federal agencies from locking their doors on Tuesday. But disputes with the Republican-run House and among GOP lawmakers themselves ensure that the battle will spill into the weekend at least, and quite possibly beyond.

The result: a high-stakes showdown that is playing out in a climate of chaos, infighting and unpredictability that is extraordinary even by congressional standards.

The Senate planned votes Friday on the measure preventing a shutdown. Senators were expected to pass it after derailing a conservative effort to block the bill and after removing House-approved language that strips money from President Barack Obama's health care law.

That would bounce the legislation back to the House, where GOP leaders already have declared that the pared-down Senate bill was insufficient.

With conservatives insisting that the shutdown bill and a separate debt limit measure present an opportunity to demolish the Affordable Care Act and slash spending, House leaders were not saying what, if any, decisions they had made on strategy.

No votes on the budget bill were expected in the House until at least the weekend. The Senate measure would allow hundreds of thousands of employees at dozens of agencies to continue working, while shielding lawmakers from public scorn.

In the last two days, I've lost nearly half my October commission. Federal agencies are being required to cancel training programs on the chance the government shuts down, which means no $$ for Gratch.

I don't know how it's going to play out, but I wish they'd quit fucking around and do their jobs -- namely, governing. I've seen this movie too many times to get engrossed in the details. Just work it out.

And if you can't, we're going to declare the tea party a terrorist organization and break it up.

I don't know how it's going to play out, but I wish they'd quit fucking around and do their jobs -- namely, governing. I've seen this movie too many times to get engrossed in the details. Just work it out.

And if you can't, we're going to declare the tea party a terrorist organization and break it up.

Damn straight. Nothing makes me roll my eyes more than a pol boasting about going to Washington and refusing to compromise "principles". You know what one of your principles should be, dipshit? Governing effectively.

I don't know how it's going to play out, but I wish they'd quit fucking around and do their jobs -- namely, governing. I've seen this movie too many times to get engrossed in the details. Just work it out.

And if you can't, we're going to declare the tea party a terrorist organization and break it up.

Party based obstructionism at its finest and who are the losers in this stare down? The taxpayer, of course. Im beginning to believe that the system is broken beyond repair and the only thing that can save us in the long run is to burn it all down and start over.

I don't know how it's going to play out, but I wish they'd quit fucking around and do their jobs -- namely, governing. I've seen this movie too many times to get engrossed in the details. Just work it out.

And if you can't, we're going to declare the tea party a terrorist organization and break it up.

So by working it out you mean just give them what they want, got ya.

They got what they wanted when the law was passed. Now the other side is being petulant and underhanded, attempting to sabotage a law by any means necessary.

I don't know how it's going to play out, but I wish they'd quit fucking around and do their jobs -- namely, governing. I've seen this movie too many times to get engrossed in the details. Just work it out.

And if you can't, we're going to declare the tea party a terrorist organization and break it up.

So by working it out you mean just give them what they want, got ya.

They got what they wanted when the law was passed. Now the other side is being petulant and underhanded, attempting to sabotage a law by any means necessary.

I will get upset about that when the POTUS starts enforcing the laws. The Republicans hardly have a monopoly on being petulant and underhanded. The path they are taking is made possible by laws as well, so if you don't like the way the game is being played change the rules, but don't be surprised if that would come back to haunt you as well.

They got what they wanted when the law was passed. Now the other side is being petulant and underhanded, attempting to sabotage a law by any means necessary.

I will get upset about that when the POTUS starts enforcing the laws.

Congressional Republicans are currently threatening to shut down the government and default on the nation's debt unless the Affordable Healthcare Act is repealed. What are some of the specific laws the POTUS is failing to enforce that you feel are equivalent to denying pay to active duty servicemen and collapsing the global economy?

They got what they wanted when the law was passed. Now the other side is being petulant and underhanded, attempting to sabotage a law by any means necessary.

I will get upset about that when the POTUS starts enforcing the laws.

Congressional Republicans are currently threatening to shut down the government and default on the nation's debt unless the Affordable Healthcare Act is repealed. What are some of the specific laws the POTUS is failing to enforce that you feel are equivalent to denying pay to active duty servicemen and collapsing the global economy?

-Autistic Angel

I don't see it that way. I see it as Democrats threatening to shut down the government unless it is funded as is. Is Obamacare more important that paying servicemen and not collapsing the economy?

I don't hve time or energy to list all the laws that Obama and the executive branch have chosen not to enforce and/or ignore, there are dozens.

Not enforcing a law they don't agree with is a) a regularly used tactic by plenty of administrations and b) a husbanding of limited resources.

And the Dems are more than willing to fund the government. And they want to fund all of the laws that have been legally passed. The Repubs want to fund everything but the stuff they don't want, and are willing to grind things to a halt if they don't get to cherrypick what gets money and what doesn't.

I'd say it's all a matter of perspective, but in this case, your perspective is wrong. The Repubs are not in majority and they're throwing a fit because they'r eoutvoted and outnumbered in the government as a whole.

Not enforcing a law they don't agree with is a) a regularly used tactic by plenty of administrations and b) a husbanding of limited resources.

And the Dems are more than willing to fund the government. And they want to fund all of the laws that have been legally passed. The Repubs want to fund everything but the stuff they don't want, and are willing to grind things to a halt if they don't get to cherrypick what gets money and what doesn't.

I'd say it's all a matter of perspective, but in this case, your perspective is wrong. The Repubs are not in majority and they're throwing a fit because they'r eoutvoted and outnumbered in the government as a whole.

Power of the Purse has been used as well, most notably in an attempt to force us out of the Vietnam War.

I don't understand what all you guys are upset about, you should be cheering. If this move is as catastrphic as you like to indicate it is, it should lead to Democrats controlling all branches of the government for decades. You should be cheering them on, unless destruction of Republican chances to lead isn't so certain after all.

Not enforcing a law they don't agree with is a) a regularly used tactic by plenty of administrations and b) a husbanding of limited resources.

And the Dems are more than willing to fund the government. And they want to fund all of the laws that have been legally passed. The Repubs want to fund everything but the stuff they don't want, and are willing to grind things to a halt if they don't get to cherrypick what gets money and what doesn't.

I'd say it's all a matter of perspective, but in this case, your perspective is wrong. The Repubs are not in majority and they're throwing a fit because they'r eoutvoted and outnumbered in the government as a whole.

SO then this would just lead to them losing what little power they have. You should be happy.

I don't want either party to have complete control. But the Republicans aren't acting like a junior partner trying to be the voice of sanity, they're acting like Chihuahuas up against German Shepherds. All the barking and noise is going to be counterproductive in the long run.

Not enforcing a law they don't agree with is a) a regularly used tactic by plenty of administrations and b) a husbanding of limited resources.

And the Dems are more than willing to fund the government. And they want to fund all of the laws that have been legally passed. The Repubs want to fund everything but the stuff they don't want, and are willing to grind things to a halt if they don't get to cherrypick what gets money and what doesn't.

I'd say it's all a matter of perspective, but in this case, your perspective is wrong. The Repubs are not in majority and they're throwing a fit because they'r eoutvoted and outnumbered in the government as a whole.

Power of the Purse has been used as well, most notably in an attempt to force us out of the Vietnam War.

I don't understand what all you guys are upset about, you should be cheering. If this move is as catastrphic as you like to indicate it is, it should lead to Democrats controlling all branches of the government for decades. You should be cheering them on, unless destruction of Republican chances to lead isn't so certain after all.

That's the outcome you'd expect except for two things: Low-information voters have very short memories, and because of gerrymandering only 20-ish House seats are in play. The Dems will whittle down the Rep House majority but they can't overturn it until the next census and redistricting. The presidency is already out of Rep reach for at least a generation but retaking the House is going to be a bitch.

I don't understand what all you guys are upset about, you should be cheering. If this move is as catastrphic as you like to indicate it is, it should lead to Democrats controlling all branches of the government for decades.

I do not consider an improvement in my party's electoral chances to be worth deeply damaging the economy of the United States, as these funding and debt ceiling games could do. I want to win, to be sure, but not at the cost of harming millions of innocent people.

I don't understand what all you guys are upset about, you should be cheering. If this move is as catastrphic as you like to indicate it is, it should lead to Democrats controlling all branches of the government for decades.

I do not consider an improvement in my party's electoral chances to be worth deeply damaging the economy of the United States, as these funding and debt ceiling games could do. I want to win, to be sure, but not at the cost of harming millions of innocent people.

Then it would seem prudent to sign off on the one year delay. If the president could exempt businesses for a year it would seem doing so for the rest of us would not be catastophic, whereas everyone can agree the shutdown will be very harmful. When you refuse to negotiate with "terrorists threatening to blow things up" don't be surprised when they "blow things up". They have nothing to lose as myself and many others have made it VERY clear if they fund it without concessions don't expect to get reelected.

I don't understand what all you guys are upset about, you should be cheering. If this move is as catastrphic as you like to indicate it is, it should lead to Democrats controlling all branches of the government for decades. You should be cheering them on, unless destruction of Republican chances to lead isn't so certain after all.

Or unless proving that point means that a lot of people get hurt. Gratch, for example. Military servicemen. FBI, CIA, DEA, and ICE employees with mortgages to pay and families to feed, as well as the countless businesses that rely on their patronage.

That's just the effect of shutting down the government, by the way. Toying around with the debt ceiling is expected to be several magnitudes worse. The last time the Republicans did this, they cost the United States its AAA credit rating and added an estimated $100 billion in additional interest payments to the national deficit. No one really knows what will happen if they go all the way this time, but a second Great Depression is a common prediction.

Perhaps you think politics is some sort of abstract sports game where two teams compete for points, but the reality is that things like work furloughs, health insurance, SNAP benefits, and student loans have profound impacts on people's lives. Whatever political price Republicans might pay for this chicanery, it isn't worth the misery they're trying to inflict on the country.

Quote from: Rip on September 28, 2013, 08:14:53 PM

I don't see it that way. I see it as Democrats threatening to shut down the government unless it is funded as is. Is Obamacare more important that paying servicemen and not collapsing the economy?

Republicans fought against the Affordable Healthcare Act when it was being debated and they lost.

They fought it when the bill was up for a vote and they lost.

They fought its implementation at the state level and they lost.

They fought its constitutionality all the way to the Supreme Court and they lost.

They fought it in the 2012 presidential election and they lost.

Republicans like to point to polls suggesting that the public doesn't like the bill. They don't talk much about polls showing that, as much as they dislike "Obamacare," they overwhelmingly support all of the protections it will afford them.

You can choose to "see" this situation any way you like, Rip. The fact remains that after Republicans have been soundly defeated at every other turn, they're promising to intentionally sabotage the nation's economy unless the government meets their demands. If that sort of threat weren't coming from inside the government itself, it would likely qualify as an act of war.

Quote from: Ezra Klein, The Washington Post

Imagine that Putin stepped forward tomorrow morning and announced that Russia had developed a computer virus that would shut down the market for U.S. Treasuries and that he would release that virus unless Obama agreed to a list of Russian demands.

No one would say Russia was asking for negotiations with Obama. They would say Russia was holding the U.S. economy hostage and demanding that Obama pay a ransom. No Republican -- and no Democrat -- would advice Obama to take that meeting. The sole question would be prevention and, if necessary, reprisal.

Not enforcing a law they don't agree with is a) a regularly used tactic by plenty of administrations and b) a husbanding of limited resources.

And the Dems are more than willing to fund the government. And they want to fund all of the laws that have been legally passed. The Repubs want to fund everything but the stuff they don't want, and are willing to grind things to a halt if they don't get to cherrypick what gets money and what doesn't.

I'd say it's all a matter of perspective, but in this case, your perspective is wrong. The Repubs are not in majority and they're throwing a fit because they'r eoutvoted and outnumbered in the government as a whole.

Power of the Purse has been used as well, most notably in an attempt to force us out of the Vietnam War.

I don't understand what all you guys are upset about, you should be cheering. If this move is as catastrphic as you like to indicate it is, it should lead to Democrats controlling all branches of the government for decades. You should be cheering them on, unless destruction of Republican chances to lead isn't so certain after all.

As a non-American who won't be directly negatively affected, I am cheering it on in a way. I would really like to see the Republicans burn themselves to the ground as a party. Perhaps a Phoenix will rise from the ashes. As has already been stated though that is unlikely to happen thanks to gerrymandering. Perhaps the US should move to a proportional voting format? Then I think you would see Republicans changing their tune as a party quite quickly.

Not enforcing a law they don't agree with is a) a regularly used tactic by plenty of administrations and b) a husbanding of limited resources.

And the Dems are more than willing to fund the government. And they want to fund all of the laws that have been legally passed. The Repubs want to fund everything but the stuff they don't want, and are willing to grind things to a halt if they don't get to cherrypick what gets money and what doesn't.

I'd say it's all a matter of perspective, but in this case, your perspective is wrong. The Repubs are not in majority and they're throwing a fit because they'r eoutvoted and outnumbered in the government as a whole.

Power of the Purse has been used as well, most notably in an attempt to force us out of the Vietnam War.

I don't understand what all you guys are upset about, you should be cheering. If this move is as catastrphic as you like to indicate it is, it should lead to Democrats controlling all branches of the government for decades. You should be cheering them on, unless destruction of Republican chances to lead isn't so certain after all.

As a non-American who won't be directly negatively affected, I am cheering it on in a way. I would really like to see the Republicans burn themselves to the ground as a party. Perhaps a Phoenix will rise from the ashes. As has already been stated though that is unlikely to happen thanks to gerrymandering. Perhaps the US should move to a proportional voting format? Then I think you would see Republicans changing their tune as a party quite quickly.

Perhaps the Libertarian party would actually become relevant? I could get behind that. Either way for them to forfeit the battle now would be even worse than having never fought it, so unless they are totally stupid they really don't have a choice now. Passing the bill as it stands now would guarantee the loss of The House in the the next election.

Either way for them to forfeit the battle now would be even worse than having never fought it, so unless they are totally stupid they really don't have a choice now. Passing the bill as it stands now would guarantee the loss of The House in the the next election.

Option A: Deliberately sabotage the economy, hurting the poor and middle class the worst, and hope that enough anger at generic targets like "Washington" and "Congress" splashes onto Democrats that people vote for you out of hopeless frustration.

Option B: Produce economically viable ideas about how to improve the country for its citizens, engage in good faith negotiations to see them passed into law, and use that record of accomplishments to earn people's votes.

The fact that you consider Option A to be the preferrable choice at all says a lot about you and your political affiliations, Rip. Do me a favor: why don't you address Gratch directly and explain to him how slashing his family's income is an acceptable price for John Boehner to cling to the Speakership for one more term of flaccid inaction?

I'm intentionally choosing to stay out of this discussion, mainly so I don't say anything that will get me banned.

I'll just make one observation: The GOP's myopic view that shutting down the government only affects "lazy entitled government workers" (as my brother-in-law told me yesterday) and has no larger effect on the economy as a whole is stunningly ignorant.

I'll defer my thoughts on what this move is doing to the government workforce as a whole to a time when I'm a little less furious about it all.

Why would their Social Security checks be late? Mandatory spending isn't stopped by a government shutdown.

The money to cover Social Security payments would still be authorized, but with 800,000 federal employees furloughed -- and the remaining "essential" personnel working without pay -- the system would be unable to review claims, process new ones, or correct for unexpected circumstances. Short staffed? Failed equipment? Data error? Sorry, the department that deals with that is closed this month.

Then there's the Debt Ceiling. What happens if Republicans decide the United States is officially overdrawn and will no longer pay its debts? Theoretically, any checks cut by the federal government, including Social Security payments, would bounce due to insufficient funds.

But again, we don't actually know. No economic superpower has ever declared to the global marketplace that its currency will no longer be honored because a duly elected political minority is having a tantrum. It's the equivalent of locking yourself inside nuclear reactor and throwing random switches just to see what happens.

I'm intentionally choosing to stay out of this discussion, mainly so I don't say anything that will get me banned.

I'll just make one observation: The GOP's myopic view that shutting down the government only affects "lazy entitled government workers" (as my brother-in-law told me yesterday) and has no larger effect on the economy as a whole is stunningly ignorant.

I'll defer my thoughts on what this move is doing to the government workforce as a whole to a time when I'm a little less furious about it all.

Saw a story yesterday saying that NASA will have to furlough all but 600 of its 18,000 employees. They will be able to support the ISS crew and preserve data collection from active interplanetary missions, but nothing else. That's an awful lot of idled rocket scientists.

Quote from: pr0ner on September 29, 2013, 03:36:20 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on September 28, 2013, 02:16:11 AM

It looks like they're really going to shut 'er down. I wonder how enthused the teabaggers will feel if their Social Security checks are late.

Why would their Social Security checks be late? Mandatory spending isn't stopped by a government shutdown.

Just wishful thinking on my part, even though the teabaggers are just a tiny fraction of the people who rely on SS.

Either way for them to forfeit the battle now would be even worse than having never fought it, so unless they are totally stupid they really don't have a choice now. Passing the bill as it stands now would guarantee the loss of The House in the the next election.

Option A: Deliberately sabotage the economy, hurting the poor and middle class the worst, and hope that enough anger at generic targets like "Washington" and "Congress" splashes onto Democrats that people vote for you out of hopeless frustration.

Option B: Produce economically viable ideas about how to improve the country for its citizens, engage in good faith negotiations to see them passed into law, and use that record of accomplishments to earn people's votes.

The fact that you consider Option A to be the preferrable choice at all says a lot about you and your political affiliations, Rip. Do me a favor: why don't you address Gratch directly and explain to him how slashing his family's income is an acceptable price for John Boehner to cling to the Speakership for one more term of flaccid inaction?

-Autistic Angel

Option B must be a joke. They have ideas but president and senate have shown they are not interested in them and won't allow most amendments or changes. Although the president can make changes just as big or bigger on a whim at his discretion. Good faith negotiations requires the participation of more than one party. The other side has already stated they will not negotiate and when you do that you should expect hostility as a result.

Here is the problem I have with all of this Rip, and this is coming from someone who can't stand the dems and the current administration. Congress voted to pass all of this spending, that should have been the vote where you fight a debt increase. What they are doing now is acting like a deadbeat family who charges a bunch of stuff on the family credit cards and then refuses to pay for it.

Either way for them to forfeit the battle now would be even worse than having never fought it, so unless they are totally stupid they really don't have a choice now. Passing the bill as it stands now would guarantee the loss of The House in the the next election.

Option A: Deliberately sabotage the economy, hurting the poor and middle class the worst, and hope that enough anger at generic targets like "Washington" and "Congress" splashes onto Democrats that people vote for you out of hopeless frustration.

Option B: Produce economically viable ideas about how to improve the country for its citizens, engage in good faith negotiations to see them passed into law, and use that record of accomplishments to earn people's votes.

The fact that you consider Option A to be the preferrable choice at all says a lot about you and your political affiliations, Rip. Do me a favor: why don't you address Gratch directly and explain to him how slashing his family's income is an acceptable price for John Boehner to cling to the Speakership for one more term of flaccid inaction?

-Autistic Angel

Option B must be a joke. They have ideas but president and senate have shown they are not interested in them and won't allow most amendments or changes.

Citation needed. Be specific.

For example, if someone wanted to demonstrate some of the Republican-backed ideas that were included in the Affordable Healthcare Act, this handy list of provisions, complete with the resolution numbers of their original Republican proposals, would be a good place to start. Saying, "We're interested in your ideas," and then including those ideas in the bill that becomes law is an example of negotiating in good faith.

Providing a list of ideas they claimed to want, then lying to the American people about death panels, trying to block the bill from ever coming up for a vote, and finally voting unanimously against it? That's an example of negotiating in bad faith.

Quote from: Rip on September 29, 2013, 05:31:52 PM

The other side has already stated they will not negotiate and when you do that you should expect hostility as a result.

More hostile than "Do what we say or the economy gets it!!" Brainstorm a bit for us, Rip: compared to toying around with the specter of global economic collapse, what is the *more* hostile action you think the Republicans are now justified in taking?

There is nothing more hostile they can do, that is more point. When you say I won't give an inch they will do the most hostile thing they have. At this point that is refusing to pass the funding CR and I would suspect refusing to authorize more debt. As you say this is a really terrible thing to do and will without a doubt hurt both parties and everyone in between. So it would seem prudent to give them a face saving out. They haven't got that out, so with no other option than outright surrender they will fight with whatever they have.

Since uncle Clinton says it is a bluff

Quote

"He could stop it, but the price of - the current price of stopping it is higher than the price of letting the Republicans do it and taking their medicine," he said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

it would appear a shutdown is inevitable, unless you believe it is a bluff. I certainly don't and I am pretty certain my congressman and senators know I wasn't bluffing when I said I won't vote for someone who votes to fund Obamacare as it stands.

Whether not it is a fair or even honorable way to do it I don't care. It is bad for me and my finances and has already resulted in my wife and daughter needing to work two part time jobs and many more hours to bring home the same money as they used to with one fulltime job and grabbing a little overtime. I wouldn't give a crap if it Romney had one the election and it was Romneycare and not Obamacare, I would be every bit as much opposed to it. I am opposed to a federal healthcare system period.

Why would their Social Security checks be late? Mandatory spending isn't stopped by a government shutdown.

The money to cover Social Security payments would still be authorized, but with 800,000 federal employees furloughed -- and the remaining "essential" personnel working without pay -- the system would be unable to review claims, process new ones, or correct for unexpected circumstances. Short staffed? Failed equipment? Data error? Sorry, the department that deals with that is closed this month.

That's one hell of a claim. Can you cite proof for that?

Also, government employees who work during a shutdown (including me) will get paid. We're not working without pay. Our pay may be delayed, but we'll still get paid.

and has already resulted in my wife and daughter needing to work two part time jobs and many more hours to bring home the same money as they used to with one fulltime job and grabbing a little overtime.

and has already resulted in my wife and daughter needing to work two part time jobs and many more hours to bring home the same money as they used to with one fulltime job and grabbing a little overtime.

Can you elaborate on this comment?

Pretty much ever fast food franchise has begun to limit employees to under thirty hours thereby making them part-time to avoid Obamacare mandated healthcare. So now many fast food employees are working at two different franchises in order to make enough hours, of course getting it all at regular time now instead of the overtime many of them used to get for hours over 40.

Because our existing clusterfuck of a healthcare system is working out so well for everyone, right?

Hasn't bothered me. I have pretty much never used it except to get stitches and a wasteful treatment of my heel when I broke it that would have healed just as well had I never went but broke down and went anyway just to be sure it was nothing more major. The nurses actually had to call their peers over to look at the big blue foot injury that occurred two weeks previous because they didn't believe anyone would not go for that long with such an injury.

Rip, I actually agree with you that much of what Obamacare does is a bad idea and needs to be repealed, but refusing to pay for things you already passed as a government is NOT the way you do it. Not sure why you think it makes any sense to run a government that way.

Because our existing clusterfuck of a healthcare system is working out so well for everyone, right?

Hasn't bothered me. I have pretty much never used it except to get stitches and a wasteful treatment of my heel when I broke it that would have healed just as well had I never went but broke down and went anyway just to be sure it was nothing more major. The nurses actually had to call their peers over to look at the big blue foot injury that occurred two weeks previous because they didn't believe anyone would not go for that long with such an injury.

Congratulations, I guess. You're very lucky you haven't encountered the astronomical costs or been flat-out denied coverage like most of the rest of us. Between monthly premiums and deductibles, my out-of-pocket over the last 3 years has averaged just under $800/month. And we're not even really that unhealthy...just happened to have twins (this year) and two required surgeries for Mrs. Gratch (one each the last two years). With ever increasing premiums and high deductibles, the amount going to medical has become absolutely ridiculous.